Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-hangar

mcp-hangar

hangar_details

Retrieve configuration and runtime details for any MCP server or group. Use this to inspect health, state, membership, and tool schemas when troubleshooting or auditing.

Instructions

Get configuration and runtime info for a mcp_server or group.

    CHOOSE THIS when: you need mcp_server config, health history, or group membership.
    CHOOSE hangar_tools when: you need tool schemas for invoking.
    CHOOSE hangar_status when: you need quick overview of all mcp_servers.

    Side effects: None (read-only).

    Args:
        mcp_server: str - McpServer ID or Group ID

    Returns:
        McpServer: {
            mcp_server: str,
            state: str,
            mode: str,
            alive: bool,
            tools: [{name, description, inputSchema}],
            health: {consecutive_failures: int, last_check: str, ...},
            idle_time: float,
            meta: object,
            dead: {reason, since, retry_allowed_at, revived_by} | null
        }
        Group: {
            group_id: str,
            description: str,
            state: str,
            strategy: str,
            min_healthy: int,
            healthy_count: int,
            members_in_rotation_count: int,
            total_members: int,
            is_available: bool,
            circuit_open: bool,
            members: [{id, state, in_rotation, weight, priority, consecutive_failures}]
        }
        A group is the same dict GET /api/groups/{id} returns. healthy_count
        counts members that are ready and in rotation;
        members_in_rotation_count counts members in rotation in any state.
        dead is null unless state is "dead". reason is "given_up",
        "crashed", "start_failed" or "capability_blocked" ("unknown" only
        for a server restored from an older record). since is when it went
        dead; retry_allowed_at is when its backoff ends at the latest, or
        null when no call starts it or no backoff applies (ISO 8601 UTC).
        revived_by is "call_or_start" (hangar_start, or a call after the
        backoff) or "start" (only hangar_start, for capability_blocked).
        Never upstream error text.
        Error: ValueError with "unknown_mcp_server: <id>"

    Example:
        hangar_details("math")
        # {"mcp_server": "math", "state": "ready", "mode": "subprocess",
        #  "alive": true, "tools": [...], "health": {"consecutive_failures": 0},
        #  "idle_time": 12.5, "meta": {}}

        hangar_details("llm-group")
        # {"group_id": "llm-group", "state": "healthy", "strategy": "round_robin",
        #  "healthy_count": 2, "total_members": 3, "members": [...]}

        hangar_details("unknown")
        # Error: unknown_mcp_server: unknown
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mcp_serverYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.10.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly. It states 'Side effects: None (read-only)', documents the error case ('unknown_mcp_server: <id>'), and explains subtle behaviors like the meaning of dead.reason, retry_allowed_at, and healthy_count. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although lengthy, the description is tightly structured with Choices, Args, Returns, Error, and Example sections. Every sentence adds necessary semantic detail, especially given the complex return shapes and the absence of an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two distinct return shapes and nuanced dead/health semantics, and there is no output schema. The description documents both return types, field meanings, error behavior, and examples, making it fully sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, but the description compensates fully: it says mcp_server can be 'McpServer ID or Group ID' and provides multiple examples showing valid usage with both type IDs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get configuration and runtime info for a mcp_server or group.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming hangar_tools and hangar_status and stating what each is for.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'CHOOSE THIS when' guidance names the exact scenarios: mcp_server config, health history, or group membership. It also names the alternatives and when to choose them, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.